What about stigma, evidence base, and consistency?

doi:10.1136/bmj.39185.466817.3A

BMJ 2007;334:814 (21 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39185.466817.3A

Letters

Institutional racism

What about stigma, evidence base, and consistency?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

If institutional racism is defined as a collective failure thatdisadvantages people in ethnic minority groups, why is activelytreating people for severe illness seen as evidence of such?¹Were this treatment for hypertension, diabetes, or sickle cellanaemia, it would be considered a well targeted intervention.

Admission rates and length of stay in mental health do not reflectillness prevalence but the severity and social disruption generatedby that illness. Delays in seeking care (and increased MentalHealth Act usage) reflect social isolation (such as the AESOPstudy) and stigmatised attitudes (such as denial or fear ofmental illness).² And were institutional racism the dominantengine of admission, why is it so differentiated in the racesit selects?

Furthermore, did the survey collect ethnicity data on the mentalhealth staff on the wards and in the community teams, wherethere is a high rate of black and minority ethnic . . . [Full text of this article]

Trevor Turner, consultant psychiatrist¹, Sue Collinson, TB support worker²

¹ East London and the City Mental Health Trust, London E1 6LP, ² Homerton University Hospital, London E9 6SR

trevor.turner@elcmht.nhs.uk